This is my work with the recommend encoder setting with the same quality :



Lame 3.98 beta 5
Oggenc2.84 using aoTuVb5
NeroAAC 1.1.34.2

Low Quality: Streaming
Not use
-q 0,25
-q 0.24

Portable
-V 6
-q 2,99
-q 0.32

Good Quality
-V 5
-q 4,25
-q 0.40

Backup: Optimal Quality / Size
-V 3
-q 4,99
-q 0.44

High Quality
-V 2
-q 5,25
-q 0.48




¿ What do you think ?

i need your comments

Here is my 2 cents worth.
OGG q2 is great for me with portable. I can ABX it compared to wavpack, but alone, I can't hear artifacts.
I used to be a LAME v5 guy, but OGG saves me a lot of space.
As for backup, all of my stuff is lossless (wavpack). This gives me the luxury of converting it to whatever I want in the future.
If you have space, I would highly recommend looking at some form of lossless to archive your stuff... That way you can convert till your heart is content whenever something strikes your fancy. If you have the luxury of a portable device that can play many formats (ala Rockbox), you can mess around with many different formats to find the one that you like. For me, that happened to be OGG.

OGG is better but then you will figure you can't play it everywhere at all. AAC same case. MP3 is still the calling and V2 seems to be quite the standard.

how is ogg better than aac?

Only technically:
- only one "profile" in Ogg Vorbis against many in AAC,
- more simple tagging system in Ogg Vorbis,
- Ogg Vorbis patent free.

My Samsung portable supports vorbis comments much better, then ID3 in MP3 (ID3v2.4 not supported at all, ID3v2.3 with some bugs).

As for sound quality - it's an object of personal ABX'ing.

Please provide some backup for this opinion. I've made a few ABX tests of the aoTuV vs. the Nero LC-AAC encoders so far, especially at bitrates in the 64 kbit/s - 96 kbit/s range, and honestly, I can't distinguish their qualities from each other. At 96 kbit/s I entirely fail at ABXing both of them vs. the FLAC sources. With certain samples and average listening equipment even 80 kbit/s can be very troublesome, as shown here. Besides, I always exclude known problematic samples from my tests, since in my opinion these ones don't provide representative significance of an encoder's average quality.